August 27, 2007 Mr. David Staudt Center for Disease Control and Prevention Acquisition and Assistance Field Branch Post Office Box 18070 626 Cochrans Mill Road – B-140 Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0295 Re: Contract No. 200-2004-03805, Task Order 1: Transmittal of Draft SCA-TR-TASK1-0018, Revision 1: Privacy Act-cleared version of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site Profile Review Dear Mr. Staudt: SC&A, Inc., is please to submit Revision 1 of a draft report titled, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site Profile Review, SCA-TR-TASK1-0018. Revision 0 of this report was forwarded to you on July 23, 2007, pending review for Privacy Act (PA) information. The document has now been revised in accordance with that review and has been cleared for distribution. Please note, however, that this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 732-530-0104. Sincerely, John Mauro, PhD, CHP Project Manager cc: P. Ziemer, PhD, Board Chairperson A. Makhijani, PhD, SC&A Advisory Board Members H. Behling, PhD, MHP, SC&A L. Wade, PhD, NIOSH M. Thorne, SC&A L. Elliott, NIOSH H. Chmelynski, SC&A J. Neton, PhD, NIOSH J. Fitzgerald, Saliant S. Hinnefeld, NIOSH J. Lipsztein, SC&A L. Homoki-Titus, NIOSH K. Robertson-DeMers, CHP, Saliant A. Brand, NIOSH S. Ostrow, PhD, SC&A J. Broehm, NIOSH K. Behling, SC&A L. Shields, NIOSH T. Bell, Saliant Project File (ANIOS/001/18) 1608 SPRING HILL ROAD, SUITE 400 • VIENNA, VIRGINIA • 22182 • 703.893.6600 • FAX 703.821.8236 Draft ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site Profile Review Contract No. 200-2004-03805 Task Order No. 1 SCA-TR-TASK1-0018, Revision 1 Prepared by S. Cohen & Associates 1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 Vienna, Virginia 22182 Saliant, Inc. 5579 Catholic Church Road Jefferson, Maryland 21755 August 2007 Disclaimer This document is made available in accordance with the unanimous desire of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) to maintain all possible openness in its deliberations. However, the ABRWH and its contractor, SC&A, caution the reader that at the time of its release, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. This implies that once reviewed by the ABRWH, the Board’s position may differ from the report’s conclusions. Thus, the reader should be cautioned that this report is for information only and that premature interpretations regarding its conclusions are unwarranted. Effective Date: Revision No. Document No. Page No. August 27, 2007 1 SCA-TR-TASK1-0018 2 of 168 S. Cohen & Associates: Document No. SCA-TR-TASK1-0018 Technical Support for the Advisory Board on Effective Date: Radiation & Worker Health Review of Draft — August 27, 2007 NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program Revision No. 1 – PA-Cleared Draft LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL Page 1 of 168 LABORATORY SITE PROFILE REVIEW Supersedes: Task Manager: 0 ________________________ Date: ___________ Joseph Fitzgerald Project Manager: ________________________ Date: ___________ John Mauro NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. Effective Date: Revision No. Document No. Page No. August 27, 2007 1 SCA-TR-TASK1-0018 3 of 168 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................5 1.0 Executive Summary.............................................................................................................9 1.1 Summary of Findings.............................................................................................14 1.2 Opportunities for Improvement .............................................................................19 2.0 Scope and Introduction ......................................................................................................22 2.1 Review Scope.........................................................................................................22 2.2 Review Approach...................................................................................................24 2.3 Report Organization...............................................................................................25 3.0 Assessment Criteria and Methods......................................................................................27 3.1 Objectives ..............................................................................................................27 3.1.1 Objective 1: Completeness of Data Sources.............................................27 3.1.2 Objective 2: Technical Accuracy..............................................................27 3.1.3 Objective 3: Adequacy of Data.................................................................28 3.1.4 Objective 4: Consistency among Site Profiles..........................................28 3.1.5 Objective 5: Regulatory Compliance........................................................28 4.0 Site Profile Strengths .........................................................................................................32 5.0 Vertical Issues....................................................................................................................33 5.1 Dose Estimation for LLNL Personnel Assigned to Weapons Testing has not been Adequately Considered .................................................................................33 5.2 Inadequate Consideration has been given in the Site Profile to Potential Exposure Received at Site 300 ..............................................................................37 5.3 Completeness and Accuracy of the Data used in Dose Reconstruction is Lacking in the Internal Dose TBD.........................................................................40 5.4 Inadequate Consideration has been given in the TBD to Potential Exposure and Missed Dose from Secondary Radionuclides .................................................43 5.5 The TBD Provides No Guidance on Bioassay Data for Intakes of Tritium, Metal Tritides, or Organically Bound Tritium.......................................................44 5.6 The TBD Does not Identify Possible Chemical Forms of Airborne Radonuclides to which Workers have been Exposed ............................................46 5.7 The Internal Dose TBD has not Adequately Identified and Reviewed Applicable Bioassay Frequencies and Detection Levels .......................................48 5.8 An Approach for Determining Internal Dose for Unmonitored or Inadequately Monitored Workers does not address Plutonium, Tritium, or Other Radionuclides...............................................................................................49 5.9 Specific Guidance is Lacking for Intake and Dose Assessment............................52 5.10 External Dose Records are Inadequately Characterized........................................53 5.10.1 1952–Present..............................................................................................53 5.10.2 1952–1957..................................................................................................54 5.11 Inadequacies Exist in How Dose of Record is Compared with Worker’s Actual Dose; Insufficient Basis Provided for Neutron Dose Estimation...............55 NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. Effective Date: Revision No. Document No. Page No. August 27, 2007 1 SCA-TR-TASK1-0018 4 of 168 5.11.1 Photon dose................................................................................................56 5.11.2 Neutron dose ..............................................................................................56 5.12 Lack of Valid External Dose Coworker Approach Hinders Adequate Dose Estimation for Early Unmonitored Workers..........................................................59 5.13 Secondary Issues....................................................................................................60 5.13.1 The Occupational Internal Dose TBD Lacks Information on Incidents that Could Cause Significant Intakes or External Dose .............60 5.13.2 Occupational Medical X-rays Incompletely Characterized for Dose Estimation ..................................................................................................61 5.13.3 Beam Quality, Filtration, and X-ray Tube Output are not Well Known........................................................................................................64 5.13.4 Reliance on ICRP Publication 34 for Applicable DCFs May Underestimate Dose...................................................................................66 5.13.5 Lack of Maintenance, Collimation, and X-ray Protocol Data Increase Uncertainty ..................................................................................67 5.13.6 Gaps Exist in the Occupational